Question

I've been recently browsing through some of wiki articles on the topic, and finally decided to clear my doubts here, even though I think the answer was actually provided by game examples in the very wiki.

I'll cut description of my thought process and go straight to the point:

1) Is it correct that I can only apply mods from CC Special Skills if I declare a CC attack as a part of current order (in active turn or as ARO), even if the opponent is in base contact with my trooper with said skill and declares a CC attack during that order anyway? Example #3 on I-kohl wiki page is what prompted me to ask.

2a) Can I apply negative mods to opponent's roll provided by CC Special Skills in anyFtF roll, or only if he rolls on CC attribute? Is it specific to some skills but not applicable to others? General description of CC Special Skills states that opponent mods are applicable to generic FtF rolls, but wording for Martial Arts specifically mentions that "Each Level of Martial Arts gives a series of specific MODs and advantages to CC, as shown in the Martial Arts Chart." Does it mean that MA level 1, 3 and 5 only specifically modify enemy CC roll, but not BS or PH rolls (if opponent decides to shoot me in the face or dodge, respectively)?

2b) A specific generic example to go with the question above. If I activate a trooper in Impersonation state, move it into BtB of the enemy trooper, at which point he declares shooting me in the face as an ARO, and then I declare a CC attack with MA3, will the opponent get a -3 mod (for MA3) to his BS attack? Do I get to also apply -6 mod to his BS roll for my Surprise Attack (I assume I do since it is applied in the example given on Surprise Attack wiki page)?

0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

34 answers to this question

1) Is it correct that I can only apply mods from CC Special Skills if I declare a CC attack as a part of current order (in active turn or as ARO), even if the opponent is in base contact with my trooper with said skill and declares a CC attack during that order anyway? Example #3 on I-kohl wiki page is what prompted me to ask.

You can only use CC special skills if you declare CC. I-Kohl explicitly includes engage and dodge as well in its first effects bullet point.

3 minutes ago, Barrogh said:

2a) Can I apply negative mods to opponent's roll provided by CC Special Skills in anyFtF roll, or only if he rolls on CC attribute? Is it specific to some skills but not applicable to others? General description of CC Special Skills states that opponent mods are applicable to generic FtF rolls, but wording for Martial Arts specifically mentions that "Each Level of Martial Arts gives a series of specific MODs and advantages to CC, as shown in the Martial Arts Chart." Does it mean that MA level 1, 3 and 5 only specifically modify enemy CC roll, but not BS or PH rolls (if opponent decides to shoot me in the face or dodge, respectively)?

If you declare CC, it does not matter what your opponent declares. For example, in a CC vs. BS, CC vs. PH, CC vs. WIP, you would still get to apply the positive modifier to yourself and the negative one to your enemy.

3 minutes ago, Barrogh said:

2b) A specific generic example to go with the question above. If I activate a trooper in Impersonation state, move it into BtB of the enemy trooper, at which point he declares shooting me in the face as an ARO, and then I declare a CC attack with MA3, will the opponent get a -3 mod (for MA3) to his BS attack? Do I get to also apply -6 mod to his BS roll for my Surprise Attack (I assume I do since it is applied in the example given on Surprise Attack wiki page)?

Yes, in that case you would get to apply -9 to your opponent's skill for martial arts and surprise even if they declare BS attack.

3

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

2b. You're correct. If the reactive model shoots back in ARO, and you declare CC with MA lvl 3, then the reactive model takes the -3 MOD to his BS. And then if you used surprise attack, you apply another -6 mod.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Because this game is built the way it is, there's exceptions everywhere which makes for the bulk of the difficulty.

2a) What @ToadChild wrote except "if your opponent declares Electric Pulse in which case you can't get positive MODs to CC or PH attributes and the negative MOD to their roll is just gone 'cause they're getting a fixed value of 7"

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

You can only use CC special skills if you declare CC. I-Kohl explicitly includes engage and dodge as well in its first effects bullet point.

Great. And yeah, I have overlooked that detail in I-kohl description. That said, what can I use to back up the first quoted statement (assuming that by "declare CC" you mean "declare CC Attack as a part of the order")? CC Special Skills page only mentions that it is only usable in close combat, but Close Combat page mentions that any side can, in fact, use any skill (BS Attack, Dodge, CC Attack...) if their requirements are met at some point in that order sequence. Where can I get a good definition of Close Combat?

I mean, it sounds absurd and there's not even a good reason to ever do the following, but right now I don't see what's stopping me (besides the fact that this would be disadvantageous to me) from declaring a move into BtB contact and a BS attack, then proceed to penalize the opponent with MA1, even though I won't get any positive modifiers to my rolls since they explicitly modify rolls with CC and PH stats and not just any roll (like it is the case with opponent mod).

0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Great. And yeah, I have overlooked that detail in I-kohl description. That said, what can I use to back up the first quoted statement? CC Special Skills page only mentions that it is only usable in close combat, but Close Combat page mentions that any side can, in fact, use any skill (BS Attack, Dodge, CC Attack...) if their requirements are met at some point in that order sequence. Where can I get a good definition of Close Combat?

I mean, it sounds absurd and there's not even a good reason to ever do the following, but right now I don't see what's stopping me (besides the fact that this would be disadvantageous to me) from declaring a move into BtB contact and a BS attack, then proceed to penalize the opponent with MA1, even though I won't get any positive modifiers to my rolls since they explicitly modify rolls with CC and PH stats and not just any roll (like it is the case with opponent mod).

They are only usable in Close Combat, so a trooper must be in base to base contact with an enemy in order to use them.

All the examples that involve the use of BS Attack, etc. require that you declare that skill when not (yet) in base contact with the enemy. Once you are in base contact, you are limited to CC, Dodge, Reset, and a few other special skills. If you want to use a CC skill, you need to declare CC Attack.

Beautiful Azra lures a Ninja on an Active Turn. He declares Move and CC against her. Once they come into base to base contact, if Azra reacts by declaring CC Attack or Dodge she will be able to implement her i-Kohl during the Face to Face Roll, but not if she declares a BS Attack.

She can use I-Kohl with CC because it's a CC skill, and with Dodge because the skill explicitly allows it.

They are only usable in Close Combat, so a trooper must be in base to base contact with an enemy in order to use them.

Alright, I guess this is my problem. Rules on CC Special Skills make it clear that I can only use them in BtB (in Close Combat), but it isn't quite clear (I think?) what action declarations I can modify with these special skills provided I can perform them in that situation (in BtB contact). For one, you are saying that I cannot modify Dodge, but I don't see what makes Dodge (as Disengage) any different than CC Attack in terms of MA applicability in a close combat situation.

It's somewhat relevant because I can think of situations when I would actually prefer to Disengage as MA model for that 2-inch movement.

On a side note, I am terribly sorry for behaving like That Guy, but I would like to know where to get RAW justifications for my moves. You see, for the lack of friends that play Infinity, I may end up being stuck with local wargaming group. Now, I don't know about Infinity community specifically, but local wargamers in general a infamous for several things, one of them being possibility of running into really nasty rule lawyers. Just yesterday I was a witness to an attempt to enforce a gear WYSIWYG (while even ITS rules allow some proxies), so I want to be prepared if that's the atmosphere here.

0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

We've had this discussion recently (past two months or so). Let's go at it with absurdity.

There is no difference in the requirements between Martial Arts 1 through 5. All apply to equal situations under equal conditions, right? Well, I can see why you'd argue that you'd be able to use Martial Arts 1 or 3 to make your enemy have a -3 to their relevant attribute and frankly it's kind of enticing as one who plays an army where approaching half of the models are endowed with Martial Arts 3. However, how does Dodge with Martial Arts 5 work? You dodge and... make... an attack... on all in melee? That's absurd.

(The beneficial MODs from Martial Arts are explicitly only applied to CC Attack attribute and CC Damage, so will under no circumstances nor interpretations work with Dodge.)

3 hours ago, Barrogh said:

Just yesterday I was a witness to an attempt to enforce a gear WYSIWYG (while even ITS rules allow some proxies), so I want to be prepared if that's the atmosphere here.

I must say I find this a bit odd and disheartening. In general I've found that nearly all interactions I've had or have heard of with Infinity communities have by large been positive ones. The stories of rules lawyering, bad community climates and so on from Warhammer forums are absent, instead you get occasional stories of single individuals who cause problems rather than entire communities adopting intolerant attitudes.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

There is no difference in the requirements between Martial Arts 1 through 5. All apply to equal situations under equal conditions, right?

Well, if you are talking about myself mentioning "MA 1, 3 and 5", I was merely bringing up MA levels with Opponent mods, since that was the context at the time. If you mean that time when I mentioned "penalizing the opponent with MA1", it was merely an example. Again, of a level with Opponent mod.

Just now, Mahtamori said:

However, how does Dodge with Martial Arts 5 work? You dodge and... make... an attack... on all in melee? That's absurd.

(The beneficial MODs from Martial Arts are explicitly only applied to CC Attack attribute and CC Damage, so will under no circumstances nor interpretations work with Dodge.)

You are right, positive mods to CC are specifically for attribute (and therefore won't apply if you don't use CC Attack), but Opponent mod is, apparently, not. Therefore I'm asking if I can use MA 1, 3 or 5 to impose negative Opponent mod on an opponent's action taken in BtB with my trooper if said trooper is doing something he can do in close combat that isn't CC Attack. Like I said, I can think of some niche cases when it can be beneficial.

Although, of course, if there's something that says I'm required to use CC Attack to apply CC Special Skills, it won't work, but aside from explicit (albeit weirdly worded) line in I-kohl description (for that specific rule), I only see the requirement of basically being in a Close Combat.

Closest thing to Close Combat definition we have is "troopers are in BtB, doing stuff", so here we are...

Just now, Mahtamori said:

I must say I find this a bit odd and disheartening. In general I've found that nearly all interactions I've had or have heard of with Infinity communities have by large been positive ones. The stories of rules lawyering, bad community climates and so on from Warhammer forums are absent, instead you get occasional stories of single individuals who cause problems rather than entire communities adopting intolerant attitudes.

I really hope so. For example, climate on this forum is vastly different from what I experienced on other, non-Infinity resources, and comparison between rule discussion sections is another such example. I really hope I won't have to deal with it and will be able to leave my own rule lawyer aspect at home

0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I think this is a case of the odd formatting of the wiki causing confusion. If you look in the rulebook or PDF on page 40, you'll see that there is a Close Combat chapter; it starts with the intro that is in the Close Combat page, and then goes straight into CC Attack Declaration and CC Attack Resolution. Both of these are also linked from the bottom of the wiki page, but it's a lot less obvious that they are all part of a single chapter explaining a single concept. The BS Attack chapter is structured in exactly the same way.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

@ToadChild, to be fair, I've checked those pages at the time too, and ofc I've read PDF document prior to that. My problem was that close combat differs from shootouts in that besides attack declarations there are additional rules involved that have effect whether or not actual attacks are taken (stuff mostly related to being in BtB with an enemy). Whether or not those are part of "close combat" sitaution is not exactly clear since they can be used aggressively without actually declaring an attack (moving your dogged warband into BtB by declaring move-move to prevent the enemy from drawing LoF elsewhere, for example), and we don't have "Close Combat" defined anywhere to confirm or deny that.

I will not go full retard trying to argue that MA and the like never work because the trigger condition, while named, isn't defined anywhere

So, I guess I would not insist that it's my given right to apply MA penalties without declaring a CC Attack like in the example above, but nor will I be able to argue with absolute certainty that this is definitely illegal...

Thankfully, what we are left with is rather minor concern, I doubt it will come up very often.

Burst MOD: A MOD to the B value of the user's CC Weapon (Knife, CC Weapon, Pistol...) when making a CC Attack.

Type of Damage: Special effects applied to the Damage done in CC by the user.

Special: General special effects the user can apply.

Note that "Opponent MOD" is a modifier to face-to-face rolls. Given a requirement of a face-to-face roll against an opponent while using a CC skill, that limits what the martial artist is doing.

As far as I can tell, if a Martial Artist is engaged and declares Dodge, it would get to apply Opponent MOD to anyone face-to-face vs. their dodge. But the Attack MOD wouldn't apply because "CC Attack" is a skill and a skill tag applied to some skills and Dodge is neither CC Attack or tagged with 'CC Attack'.

The Opponent MOD's would apply outside of base contact because of the base contact requirement in the CC skill definitions.

Given that the engaged state limits the skills and AROs that can be declared by a model, what is there to argue about other than Dodge?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Note that "Opponent MOD" is a modifier to face-to-face rolls. Given a requirement of a face-to-face roll against an opponent while using a CC skill, that limits what the martial artist is doing.

As far as I can tell, if a Martial Artist is engaged and declares Dodge, it would get to apply Opponent MOD to anyone face-to-face vs. their dodge. But the Attack MOD wouldn't apply because "CC Attack" is a skill and a skill tag applied to some skills and Dodge is neither CC Attack or tagged with 'CC Attack'.

The Opponent MOD's would apply outside of base contact because of the base contact requirement in the CC skill definitions.

This is a good write-up, thank you. This is my current interpretation also, at least.

11 hours ago, solkan said:

Given that the engaged state limits the skills and AROs that can be declared by a model, what is there to argue about other than Dodge?

Probably not much else, maybe some very model-specific rules I'm not aware of, if they even exist. In any case, I think those should be solvable now that basic principle is more or less agreed on.

Bonus points for Dodge kinda making sense fluff-wise in the context of martial arts being used on the battlefield.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Dodge doesn't let you apply the MODs to either trooper, that's why I-Kohl has to have an explicit exception allowing its use with Dodge and Engage.

Exception from rule does not, in fact, proves existence of any rule, even if Cicero tells you otherwise. I would like to ask you to quote the rule that supports your view. I mean, we have spent some time searching for it and only thing that we could find brought the conclusion above.

It's not a huge thing at this point, more like an argument for the sake of argument, but still.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Exception from rule does not, in fact, proves existence of any rule, even if Cicero tells you otherwise. I would like to ask you to quote the rule that supports your view. I mean, we have spent some time searching for it and only thing that we could find brought the conclusion above.

It's not a huge thing at this point, more like an argument for the sake of argument, but still.

As I said above, all of these quotes come from the chapter about how to apply the CC Attack skill. Therefore they only apply to the CC Attack skill.

As I said above, all of these quotes come from the chapter about how to apply the CC Attack skill. Therefore they only apply to the CC Attack skill.

Please, read the entire thread. We have spent considerable time trying to find the wording you are suggesting, only to find that (self-quoting here manually because mobile) :

"Although, of course, if there's something that says I'm required to useCCAttack to applyCCSpecial Skills, it won't work, but aside from explicit (albeit weirdly worded) line in I-kohl description (for that specific rule), I only see the requirement of basically being in a Close Combat.

Closest thing to Close Combat definition we have is "troopers are in BtB, doing stuff", so here we are..."

This statement still stands. I haven't seen anything that suggests CC Special Skills are only useble CC Attack short skill, but that they are useable in "Close Combat". I have also tried to look up the definition of close combat, and the best we've got is, well, roughly what I said above. I am not providing any links because I already have done so before, which both of you would've known had you read the thread before repeating something that was already said before (and found unsupported).

CC Resolution sequence (found in Close Combat chapter of the rules) only suggests that CC Attack is only one of the skills to be used. It also efound in Close Combat chapter of the rulesxplicitly mentions Dodge and other skills useable while engaged. CC Attack gets no special mention.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Please, read the entire thread. We have spent considerable time trying to find the wording you are suggesting, only to find that (self-quoting here manually because mobile) :

"Although, of course, if there's something that says I'm required to useCCAttack to applyCCSpecial Skills, it won't work, but aside from explicit (albeit weirdly worded) line in I-kohl description (for that specific rule), I only see the requirement of basically being in a Close Combat.

Closest thing to Close Combat definition we have is "troopers are in BtB, doing stuff", so here we are..."

This statement still stands. I haven't seen anything that suggests CC Special Skills are only useble CC Attack short skill, but that they are useable in "Close Combat". I have also tried to look up the definition of close combat, and the best we've got is, well, roughly what I said above. I am not providing any links because I already have done so before, which both of you would've known had you read the thread before repeating something that was already said before (and disproved).

Erm, no. This is your interpretation that comes from chapter layout. Like I said before, "CC plus movement sequence" box (right there in your quote) explicitly allows us to construct CC sequence without CC Attack declaration at all, declaring "any of the skills above: Bs Attack, CC Attack, Dodge..." etc. It is still a CC sequence, I presume.

0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Erm, no. This is your interpretation that comes from chapter layout. Like I said before, "CC plus movement sequence" box (right there in your quote) explicitly allows us to construct CC sequence without CC Attack declaration at all, declaring "any of the skills above: Bs Attack, CC Attack, Dodge..." etc. It is still a CC sequence, I presume.

Whereas I read that as clarifying/reminding that both players are allowed to use any appropriate skill (such as dodge or BS Attack) even in an order where they attain base contact; you cannot force an enemy into a CC Attack declaration just because you entered base contact with them.

I really don't read that as strong enough to claim that an order where both models make BS Attacks at each other is a "close combat" and can have CC Skills applied.

0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Whereas I read that as clarifying/reminding that both players are allowed to use any appropriate skill (such as dodge or BS Attack) even in an order where they attain base contact; you cannot force an enemy into a CC Attack declaration just because you entered base contact with them

Oh, you are absolutely right there. But I'm not trying to force CC Attack declaration from opponent. My point is that "Close Combat" is not equal to "CC Attack declaration". Here we have an example that is called "Close Combat and Movement sequence". It suggests that active trooper can walk into BtB with an opponent who can use any appropriate ARO (CC Attack, BS Attack, Dodge, any allowed Special Skill, Hacking program etc.), then active trooper can declare its second short skill, which also can be anything allowed (same list, basically, but of course we should distinguish active order and ARO). But it all is listed as a sequence that is called "Close Combat and Movement", therefore I conclude that "Close Combat" is not defined by using CC Attack short skill and you can build what game calls "Close Combat sequence" without declaring it, likely as long as you are in BtB with the opponent.

14 minutes ago, ToadChild said:

I really don't read that as strong enough to claim that an order where both models make BS Attacks at each other is a "close combat" and can have CC Skills applied.

Well, you are right in that we don't have a strict definition, but we don't have anything better either. You have suggested using chapter structure, but it is also not very convincing - chapter merely introduces us to short skills that are unusable outside of close combat and thus weren't mentioned before, tell us how to resolve situations involving those... However, it also only mentions this new skill (CC Attack) as one of the options we have in "CC and Movement sequence".

This is not a strong claim, true, but I failed to find anything better.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

This is not an argument from authority fallacy, it's how the rule set functions.

It is exactly the former, to be honest. The latter would require a solid writing in the rules that apparently doesn't even exists for either side of the argument to use as a proof.

That said, I am not against taking chief playtester's word on how the rules are intended to function since in the end RAW only tries to convey game designer's intentions to us, and there's no better source on what was intended than CB employee (that said, how would I know that without community telling me? ).

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It is exactly the former, to be honest. The latter would require a solid writing in the rules that apparently doesn't even exists for either side of the argument to use as a proof.

That said, I am not against taking chief playtester's word on how the rules are intended to function since in the end RAW only tries to convey game designer's intentions to us, and there's no better source on what was intended than CB employee (that said, how would I know that without community telling me? ).

It is not.

I'll type this slowly and clearly, since you seem to be hard of comprehension.

Infinity is a permissive rule set. Nothing is permitted unless explicitly stated. iKohl explicitly permits the modifier to apply to dodge and engage, thus it does. Other CC Special Skills DO NOT explicitly allow the modifiers to apply, thus SINCE NO PERMISSION IS GIVEN the modifiers do not apply.

Nowhere in this argument is an appeal to authority.

If you disagree with the clear statement of the rules, then the onus is upon you to show the rule that contradicts this. Bleating that "the rule doesn't say I can't" is not a contradiction.

YOU CAN ONLY DO WHAT THE RULES SAY YOU CAN.

0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

@Dragonstriker, I'm afraid you are completely misinterpreting my argument. I have posted it in this thread already, but you got sidetracked by I-Kohl mention (forget it, it's only a specific case and I don't argue from standpoint of it).

I argue that I am explicitly allowed to use CC Special Skills regardless of whether I declared CC Attack as a general rule:

"They are only usable in Close Combat, so a trooper must be in base to base contact with an enemy in order to use them."

Read carefully: "In Close Combat", not "when you declare CC Attack" or something to that effect.

What is Close Combat then? Let's follow to the respective page, and you will see what @ToadChild has linked us. It does not contain any statement like "Close Combat is...". but it contains "CC plus Movement Sequence". This is the only passage in the rules that tells us that it describes an event that involves Close Combat. Let's read it:

"Close Combat typically takes place immediately after a Movement. This means the most common CC sequence is as follows:

An active trooper declares, using the first Short Skill of his Order, that he will Move into base to base contact with an enemy."

So, that's the Movement part. What about Close Combat? Let's read on:

"Said enemy declares an ARO, usually either BS Attack or CC Attack, but it might also be a Dodge (or Reset), a Hacking Program (if available), or any Special Skill usable in this situation.

The active trooper declares the second Short Skill of his Order, which might be any of the above mentioned: BS Attack, CC Attack, Dodge (or Reset), a Hacking Program (if available) or an eligible Special Skill.

Then, both the active trooper and the target in ARO make their Face to Face Rolls (unless one of the Skills used indicates otherwise)."

As you can see, I am explicitly allowed to declare "either BS Attack or CC Attack, but also a Dodge (or Reset), a Hacking Program (if available), or any Special Skill usable in this situation" either as an active turn action or ARO during what rulebook calls "Close Combat sequence"still. And as it was established early, I am explicitly allowed to use CC Special Skills in Close Combat. CC Attack is only but a single option there, not better or worse than any other allowed action.

I'm fairly sure that is exactly what you are asking me to show you: a general explicit permission.

I do know that rulesets are permissive, but thank you for reminding me anyway, I guess. Can we get this out of the way now?